Padron-Canto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Padron-Canto v. State

414 So. 2d 1151, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20248

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 81-923

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 414 So. 2d 1151 (Padron-Canto v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Padron-Canto v. State, 414 So. 2d 1151, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20248 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence for carrying a concealed firearm [§ 790.-01(2), Fla.Stat. (1979) ] under review by this appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant from the cause.

Our review of the record on appeal reveals that no evidence was ever adduced below tending to show that the firearm admittedly possessed in this ease by the defendant was ever concealed; indeed, the evidence is to the contrary that the firearm was held by the defendant in such a way that it was plainly visible to the ordinary sight of another person. The law is clear that proof of concealment is an essential element of the crime of carrying a concealed firearm under Section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and such element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case and renewed at the close of all the evidence. Quiroga v. State, 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Donald v. State, 344 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the defendant from the cause.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence for carrying a concealed firearm [§ 790.-01(2), Fla.Stat. (1979) ] under review by this appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant from the cause.

Our review of the record on appeal reveals that no evidence was ever adduced below tending to show that the firearm admittedly possessed in this ease by the defendant was ever concealed; indeed, the evidence is to the contrary that the firearm was held by the defendant in such a way that it was plainly visible to the ordinary sight of another person. The law is clear that proof of concealment is an essential element of the crime of carrying a concealed firearm under Section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and such element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case and renewed at the close of all the evidence. Quiroga v. State, 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Donald v. State, 344 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the defendant from the cause.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 So. 2d 1151, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padron-canto-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack